Christianity of Jesus vs. Christianity of Paul

*************
M*W: For the Christians on board: Whose version of Christianity do you follow, Jesus' or Paul's, and why?

http

http

I look forward to your comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your alternative close on "which do you choose" is a clever selling technique but wont wash as long as their is general consensus (as there is) that both St Paul and Jesus worshipped 'Our Father'. Why would you be trying to cause dissent among two brothers? That is meddlesome!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Medicine Woman, this thread is very interesting and I am further intrigued by c20H25N3o's comments. I have been planning on writing an essay on this forum concerning something of this sort for a while now. I suppose I will write it today, hence I won't give my input just yet..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

c20H25N3o: Your alternative close on "which do you choose" is a clever selling technique but wont wash as long as their is general consensus (as there is) that both St Paul and Jesus worshipped 'Our Father'. Why would you be trying to cause dissent among two brothers? That is meddlesome!
*************
M*W: What are you afraid of? The only thing I'm trying to 'sell' is the truth, or at least give options to those who refuse to find the truth. Since Paul and Jesus never knew one other, why do you ASSUME they worshipped the same god you believe in?

Let me remind you that Jesus left no written words that we know of, not even those found in 1947. Therefore, Paul never heard any of 'Jesus' words' first-hand, yet Paul wrote most of the NT (between 51-57 AD before he commissioned and edited the gospels some years later (70-68 AD) before his death. The 'Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple,' was written around 95 AD, so Paul had no influence on that gospel or the others found at Nag Hammadi.

For example, if my grandfather told me a story in 1973 about something his mother had said or done in 1933 regarding her mother who originally said it in 1903, and I went on to tell that same story to my children in 1993, I can assure you there would be something lost in the translation. Now, when I hear one of my children try and repeat this story to one of my grandchildren, not only has the original meaning been lost, but it has acquired a whole new meaning TO SUIT WHATEVER MORAL was intended for one of my grandchildren in 2003. Times change, people don't.

 

If Jesus calls God "Father" and St Paul calls God "Father" and St Paul speaks well of Jesus and exalts the Name of Jesus, then one could safely assume they are referring to their Father God. Our Father God, may He be praised.

peace

c20

 

c20H25N3o: If Jesus calls God "Father" and St Paul calls God "Father" and St Paul speaks well of Jesus and exalts the Name of Jesus, then one could safely assume they are referring to their Father God. Our Father God, may He be praised.
*************
M*W: That would be the ASSUMPTION, but Paul goes further than that ASSUMPTION. Paul modeled the mythical Jesus character he wrote about to be a composite of some 25 earlier dying demigod saviors.

IF the historical Jesus existed, and I am still of the thought that he did exist, his mission was to be found in the 'Jerusalem Church.' For all practical purposes, this 'Jerusalem Church' was a Jewish temple led by his brother James the Just. Jesus had no intent to form a separate church from Judaism, he wanted to enlighted the Jews about esoteric philosophies. Jesus was born a Jew and he died a Jew, but not necessarily on the cross.

If you read the history of Paul, you will see that Paul did everything he could to destroy Jesus' philosophies and beliefs. The true Christian church would have evolved from the Jerusalem Church and Peter and Paul might not have gone to Rome to start-up their own version of Christianity. If Paul was not trying to subvert the philosophies of Jesus, why did he throw James the Just over a balcony to kill him? James was preaching Jesus' truths. And while Paul was at it, he robbed the coffers of the several Christian Churches while he preached his own version of Jesus. What Paul wrote in the NT, he never heard Jesus iterate nor did he transcribe the actual words of Jesus.

It wasn't Jesus who said, "Get thee behind me, Satan," when Paul was writing about Peter, it was Paul who turned on Peter in the end.

Back in Jerusalem, James the Just's church didn't teach about Jesus' death and resurrection, nor did Jesus ever personally teach this. The words were coined and phrased by Paul who never knew Jesus.

 

The things you write of are biased texts against Paul written by authors seeking payment for their text. They are unreliable as sources. Can we please just refer to scripture if we are to prove conclusively that Paul was indeed against Jesus? All other texts in my opinion are not proved to be reliable sources. If we are to talk about St Paul as a subversive then we ought do so from his writings in the bible as authorised by the vatican.
If you cannot accept this then I am afraid I cannot take this debate any further. I think the bible is considered to be a more reliable basis upon which you may make your case rather than unverified texts which will only serve to suit your own feelings on the matter. Can we agree on debating this using authorised scripture only?

thanks

c20

 

c20H25N3o: The things you write of are biased texts against Paul written by authors seeking payment for their text. They are unreliable as sources. Can we please just refer to scripture if we are to prove conclusively that Paul was indeed against Jesus? All other texts in my opinion are not proved to be reliable sources. If we are to talk about St Paul as a subversive then we ought do so from his writings in the bible as authorised by the vatican.
If you cannot accept this then I am afraid I cannot take this debate any further. I think the bible is considered to be a more reliable basis upon which you may make your case rather than unverified texts which will only serve to suit your own feelings on the matter. Can we agree on debating this using authorised scripture only?
*************
M*W: No, because scripture is not a 'reliable text.' That is another ASSUMPTION based on ignorance. I'm not surprised that you are unable to debate this any further. Thus far, I've seen nothing you've written that was debatable. Again, I will ask you, what are you afraid of -- learning the truth?

 

Medicine Woman - You ask me personally what I am personally afraid of? The brave answer would be of course "nothing" but actually I am just a man and am afraid of many things from the little things like spiders to the big things such as nuclear war.
I am not afraid of the truth however. My point is that the texts you are quoting are not reliable sources. If you say the bible is an unreliable source then what is reliable? Hence there is nothing further to debate!
You know of both Jesus and St Paul through scripture first and you wish to prove an inconsistency in Paul's account of himself. Well if what you say is true then this will be born out through the scriptures. If I am to called a coward because I believe in the Holy Scriptures then so be it. I am certainly not afraid of words in the air!
So you have read other texts which prove that the scriptures cannot be trusted? How can those texts be anymore reliable that other texts? You even say at one point that you are not even sure that Jesus came as a human being! Well if you believe that why on earth are you talking about Jesus' God or Pauls' God being in conflict for that matter? If you want to debate on scripture I am happy. If you dont I too am happy. Not afraid as you would portray me.
Through my eyes I see that the same God loves you M*W as that that God loves me, the same God that loves Paul and the same God that loves Jesus. This is the spirit of unity and it may be recognised by God's love through the Gospels.
I simply cannot be expected to take "John Smith's Mysterious Account Of Mary Magdelanes Purpose To Be A Receptacle For The Seed Of Jesus" as a verifiable text given that you yourself have read similiar texts and still are not sure that the man even lived!
But if you are delighted in your self created perceptions that I am afraid then so be it. I can help you no further with this discussion. Apologies to SouthStar therefore!

peace

c20

 

c20H25N3o: I am not afraid of the truth however. My point is that the texts you are quoting are not reliable sources.
*************
M*W: Is this your opinion? Have you read any of the sources I've quoted?
*************
c20H25N3o: If you say the bible is an unreliable source then what is reliable? Hence there is nothing further to debate!
*************
M*W: The bible is unreliable because biblical scholars and archeologists have been unable to prove Jesus existed. It is not my personal belief that the Exodus never happened, but it is what scientists have now determined. I put more weight and value on what current scientists are finding regarding bible stories. Just because YOU don't believe current resources does NOT mean that they are unreliable. You are still of the mind-set that you are 'needy' for a higher power because you feel so 'out-of-control' in your own life.
*************
c20H25N3o: You know of both Jesus and St Paul through scripture first and you wish to prove an inconsistency in Paul's account of himself.
*************
M*W: No, this is not what I wish to prove. Yes, I knew Jesus and St. Paul through scripture, but this 'scripture' proved to lie.
*************
c20H25N3o: Well if what you say is true then this will be born out through the scriptures. If I am to called a coward because I believe in the Holy Scriptures then so be it. I am certainly not afraid of words in the air!
*************
M*W: I am not calling you a 'coward,' but I am calling you a another victim of Paul's false Christianity.
*************
c20H25N3o: So you have read other texts which prove that the scriptures cannot be trusted? How can those texts be anymore reliable that other texts?
*************
M*W: How many 'other texts' have you read refuting Christianity? How can you prove the bible is as reliable as you believe on 'blind faith?' Blind faith is just a delusion.
*************
c20H25Nn3o: You even say at one point that you are not even sure that Jesus came as a human being!
*************
M*W: I have repeatedly stated that, at this point in my research, I still believe that there was a Rabbi Jesus who lived in the first century. I will follow-up that by saying the Jesus Paul wrote about in the NT is NOT about that same Jesus.
*************
c20H25N3o: Well if you believe that why on earth are you talking about Jesus' God or Pauls' God being in conflict for that matter?
*************
M*W: To address the question: Jesus' Christianity vs. Paul's Christianity. I'm looking for answers, that's why I addressed this question to the Christians on the forum. I want you all to convince me of the differences.
*************
c20H25N3o: If you want to debate on scripture I am happy. If you dont I too am happy. Not afraid as you would portray me.
*************
M*W: Debates on biblical scripture have been debated over and over on this forum. The Christians who've posted have not been able to make a valid defense of scripture. The whole issue about what Paul wrote IS SCRIPTURE! I want to test Paul's scripture compared to Jesus' scripture, but Jesus had none. I question whose scripture you believe in: Jesus' or Paul's? So, show me what Jesus wrote, show me what Jesus did WITHOUT using Paul as your reference. I want to know Jesus' own words.
*************
c20H25N3o: Through my eyes I see that the same God loves you M*W as that that God loves me, the same God that loves Paul and the same God that loves Jesus.
*************
M*W: Are you saying, then, that God wasn't Jesus? Did you know that the concept of the Trinity is found NOWHERE in the bible? Dis you know that the concept of the Trinity was formulated between 325AD - 410AD? Jesus NEVER taught about the Trinity.
*************
c20H25N3o: This is the spirit of unity and it may be recognised by God's love through the Gospels.
*************
M*W: Paul wrote his epistles between 51-57AD. The gospels of M,M&L were written between 70-90AD. The gospel of John was written about 95AD-100AD.
*************
c20H25N3o: I simply cannot be expected to take "John Smith's Mysterious Account Of Mary Magdelanes Purpose To Be A Receptacle For The Seed Of Jesus" as a verifiable text given that you yourself have read similiar texts and still are not sure that the man even lived!
*************
M*W: The references I've cited are well-documented, well-referenced by reliable sources, and concur on the points I've brought up. I don't read or quote anything like THE DA VINCI CODE, by Dan Brown, because I don't consider it to be reliable enough. You may not be familiar with any of the authors I've cited, but that's because you remain blind-sighted to current research.
*************
c20H25n3o: But if you are delighted in your self created perceptions that I am afraid then so be it. I can help you no further with this discussion. Apologies to SouthStar therefore!
*************
M*W: My 'perceptions' are not self-created. How I wish they were! Then I could be making the money Dan Brown is. What is the one 'fear' Christians have? Surely, you're no different than other Christians. Isn't it the ultimate judgment -- burning in hell that you fear? How do you know for sure there's a heaven? How do you know for sure there is a hell? Did you ever read anything Jesus said about 'heaven' or 'hell?' No, you haven't. You've only read what Paul said. There's a difference.

 

I don't think Paul talked about hell, might be wrong..

 

§outh§tar: I don't think Paul talked about hell, might be wrong.
*************
M*W: You might be right. My point was that Jesus never said anything (that we know of) about heaven or hell.

 

Jesus's. I don't read the Bible much, but I can remember liking the book of Matthew the most.

 

Do I fear burning in hell?

No I dont. Simple. I dont. I did and then I came to understand grace and I did not. It actually doesnt matter a jot what either Paul or Jesus say, Our Father has shown me kindness in my life and I will not forget that. Neither will I forget the words of Jesus or Paul who just came to preach the truth about God. Jesus was the lamb of God and Paul was an apostle of the lamb of God. My own spirit testifies that this is true. I do not need either texts or clever arguments to justify my soul for I am justified. When Jesus said "It is done" it was done. Whatever it is that you need He may say "I have already done it!"
This is the spirit of faith... It is done!
God willed that we have eternal life and Jesus did the work offering up even His own life that you may have life in Him. His resurrection was God's seal of approval on His offering and as such He holds the highest place. Jesus is the Word of God. He calls you 'My sister'. He says to you "Follow me".
Paul says "My sister". Paul says "Follow Us"
God says "I am that I am"

 

Of course Jesus did. Jesus told the story of Lazareth and the Rich Man. Jesus also talked about the Devil (he told the Pharisees their father was the Devil). However, the modern concept of the Devil being in Hell (the ruler of Hell) is not scriptural.

This discussion looks interesting but before diving in, I would like to have the question clarified - what are the differences you see between the Christianity of Paul and Jesus? (I skimmed through the links but I am really more interested in your oppinion).

 

c20H25N3o: Do I fear burning in hell? No I dont. Simple. I dont. I did and then I came to understand grace and I did not. It actually doesnt matter a jot what either Paul or Jesus say, Our Father has shown me kindness in my life and I will not forget that. Neither will I forget the words of Jesus or Paul who just came to preach the truth about God.
*************
M*W: But, you do know that Paul preached about the divinity of Jesus, don't you? Paul promoted Jesus more than he ever promoted God.
*************
c20H25N3o: Jesus was the lamb of God and Paul was an apostle of the lamb of God.
*************
M*W: Surely you know that Paul apostleship was a self-appointment.
*************
c20H25N3o: My own spirit testifies that this is true. I do not need either texts or clever arguments to justify my soul for I am justified. When Jesus said "It is done" it was done. Whatever it is that you need He may say "I have already done it!"
This is the spirit of faith... It is done!
*************
M*W: Again, Jesus didn't say "It is done." That was said by the gospel writers who were influenced by Paul.
*************
c20H25N3o: God willed that we have eternal life and Jesus did the work offering up even His own life that you may have life in Him. His resurrection was God's seal of approval on His offering and as such He holds the highest place. Jesus is the Word of God.
*************
M*W: I believe eternal life to be the evolution of humanity. No dying demigod savior could ensure that.
*************
c20H25N3o: He calls you 'My sister'. He says to you "Follow me".
Paul says "My sister". Paul says "Follow Us" God says "I am that I am"
*************
M*W: No, this is a mere fantasy of yours. It's not real. Surely, you don't hear voices in your head -- do you? Paul hated women, so even if this wasn't just an hallucination, and you were right, Paul definitely would not call me his 'sister!' I would be his worst nightmare -- like Jesus was!

 

I tell you it is truth in all purity but you reject what I have said. Paul did certainly not hate women, that is your perception of him because you feel threatened by male dominance. Male dominance is a key theme of a lot of your posts and is the source of all of your frustrations. This is why you exalt Mary Magdelane above Jesus, because it makes you feel better about yourself. Is this to do with your own human father? Do you feel like you could never meet his expectations? This is a common cause of doubt. My own father was a beast to me, I could never be good enough for him to love unconditionally. There were always conditions. Always.
With Jesus there are no conditions because it is already done! You are set free. God loves you Medicine Woman and your knowledge of scripture would be of much benefit to believers. You are wasting your precious time fighting with the truth when you could be setting others free with it. I wish you would turn back to that which you know to be good.

peace

c20

 

Fundamentalism is the Triumph
of Paul of Tarsus
over Jesus of Nazareth

By Ray Dubuque

Albert Schweitzer :

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

Carl Jung (Psychologist) :

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

George Bernard Shaw :

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark) :

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

Thomas Jefferson:

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

Thomas Hardy:

"The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Will Durant (Philosopher):

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ." &
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."

Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton):

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christ-like life."

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author):

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar):

"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
" (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher):

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul."

By giving his blessing to slavery, Paul has helped White European Conservatives keep other races "in their place" :

{ Titus 2:9-10 : } "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior."
{ Ephesians 6: 5-8 : } "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free."
{ 1 Cor. 7: 21--24 : } "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God."
{ 1 Tim. 6:1-5 : } "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties.
Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth."

Conservatives have found in Paul, some of their best material for putting down and oppressing women

{ 1 Cor.: 34--35 : } "Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
{1 Tim. : 9-15 : } . . . "also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
{ Titus 2: 3--5 : } "Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited."
{ 1 Corinthians 11:14-16 : } " For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. . . Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious -- we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
{ 1 Corinthians 7: 29--40 } But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his fiancee, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancee, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancee does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

While Paul reflected the male chauvanism of his world, see the refreshingly liberal view of women that Jesus expressed in his words and his deeds. Sadly, in too many Christian homes and communities, Paul's view has prevailed over Jesus' view!

Conservatives have found in Paul, some of their best material for putting down and oppressing homosexuals

Homosexuals:

[Scholars don't all agree that all of the following passages really have to do with homosexuality as we understand it today. But I am quoting them all here because most conservatives use these passages for the purpose of condemning homosexuals.]
{ 1 Corinthians 6:9--10 : }
"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."
{ 1 Timothy 1: 8--11:}
"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
{Romans 1:18 thru 2:3 : } "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those (non-believers) who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason (and as punishment earned) God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, "We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?"

It's amazing how this man can blast the hell out of all kinds of people and end one of the worst diatribes that be imagined with such a conclusion!

Paul has helped Conservatives put down Jews :

{ Romans 11: 5-11 : } "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.' And David says, 'Let . . . their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent.' So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."
13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word, which is also at work in you believers.
{II Thessalonians, Ch. 2, 13--16 } For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last.

Paul has helped Conservatives put down the unfortunate :

( to be fair to Paul, it may not have been his intention to address the words below to people who cannot find work, for whatever reason, or who find it unjust to be forced to "work for peanuts", which is simply one small step above slavery, but Conservatives often use Paul's words as though the reasons people may not be profitably employed does not matter. }
{ II Thessalonians 3: 6--12 : } " Now here is a command, dear brothers, given in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ by his authority: Stay away from any Christian who spends his days in laziness and does not follow the ideal of hard work we set up for you. For you well know that you ought to follow our example: you never saw us loafing; we never accepted food from anyone without buying it; we worked hard day and night for the money we needed to live on, in order that we would not be a burden to any of you. It wasn't that we didn't have the right to ask you to feed us, but we wanted to show you firsthand how you should work for your living. Even while we were still there with you, we gave you this rule: "He who does not work shall not eat." Yet we hear that some of you are living in laziness, refusing to work, and wasting your time in gossiping. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we appeal to such people -- we command them -- to quiet down, get to work, and earn their own living."

Some of Paul's writings have even made it easier for tyrants to conserve their power to control and oppress everyone :

Fundamentalists claim to believe that all of Scripture is equally inspired by God. That would apply especially to their favorite Bible author, Paul, who gave the following perfectly clear instructions, regarding obedience to one's political leaders (no matter how evil they may be), in his
Letter to the Romans 13:1-7
" Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. "

Anybody who really believes that this passage is inspired and inerrant would have to tell all of the Christian subjects of tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Milosovich, and all the other monsters who have been in authority in the past, and any monster to come, that "GOD's WORD' compels "Christians" to obey such rulers : "there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. . . Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed." Paul doesn't allow for the slightest bit of "interpretation". He drives home his point over and over again, that we should treat any and all rulers as God's very own appointees to whatever office they hold, be it governor, king, emperor, president, prime minister, secretary general, or Führer. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" !
There are many wonderful, perhaps even "inspired" passages in Paul. On balance, it may even be possible to defend Paul, by quoting other passages which he wrote, such as Galatians, 3: 28 "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus". But the fact remains that his writings contain many passages that have provided and continue to provide biblical justification for some of the worst of Conservative bigotries. And bigots don't look for the total picture. They take what suits their evil purposes wherever they can find it, even when the context shows that they are misinterpreting a quotation. Knowing that, how can anyone imagine that God would allow his name to be attached to the treasure trove of bigotry found in the writings of Paul of Tarsus?
Conservatives aspire to both money and power. They love to control as much as possible of the behavior of others, though desiring as much freedom as possible for themselves. Even when Conservatives don't have power over others themselves, they like others being controlled. They like "law and order", which rarely means control of the powerful few for the benefit of the many, but rather control of the masses, BY the powerful few. Paul provides Conservatives with ways to think of themselves as morally superior to everybody else, thereby giving them at least "spiritual" superiority (and some sort of authority) over others. For many Conservatives, it doesn't seem enough for them to feel morally superior to others. Such people can really relate to Paul, because he enables them to feel great rather than guilty about being just like the Pharisee whom Jesus contrasted to the "Publican" or "tax-collector":

{ Luke 18: 9--14 : }

"Jesus also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.'
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."
While Jesus warned his followers not to be like the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not a sinner like the miserable "publican", Paul has provided his followers over the centuries with plenty of examples and teaching to be expert Pharisees, such as:
{ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 :} " Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."

{ Luke 9:49- 50 }

When John told Jesus, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us." Jesus replied, "Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you."

Far from encouraging the male chauvanism of the times and of middle eastern culture, Jesus demonstrated a remarkable respect for women. He seemed to go out of his way to interact with women, and especially with women of ill repute or of other cultures. Click here to see ALL of the instances of the word "woman" in the Gospels. Here are the two most noteworthy of those passages:
{ Luke 7: 36-47 }

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him--that she is a sinner." Jesus spoke up and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." "Teacher," he replied, "Speak."
"A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon answered, "I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt." And Jesus said to him, "You have judged rightly." Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little."

When pious Religious Leaders demanded that Jesus follow the Bible's teaching and impose the death sentence on the woman "caught in the very act of adultery," instead of condemning the adulteress, Jesus condemned her CONSERVATIVE prosecutors!
{ John 8: 2--11 }
"Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him."
What an amazing chapter this is. It's packed full of worthwhile lessons:
First, if there's one behavior that Jesus couldn't abide, it was sinners playing down their own sins while playing up someone else's. In this instance, the sin of one party (the adulteress) was being used by a second party (the even more sinful religious right hypocrites), to bring harm on a guilt-free third party (Jesus himself).
Then, there's a point so obvious that Jesus may not have felt it even necessary to emphasize. But, as the father of seven daughters, I wish Jesus had asked these sanctimonious male accusers explicitly, "Was this woman ALONE at the time of this adultery?"
And finally, there's the magnificent way in which Jesus turns the table on the hypocrites doing the accusing, and puts the judges themselves on trial :
"Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

Paul is the typical Conservative. While striving for as freedom as they can get for themselves, they strive for as much control over others as he can get. And even when they aren't the ones exercizing that control themselves, they like others being controlled by traditions, rules, regulations and laws anyway, especially when those rules don't affect them. e.g. the treatment of African Americans, women, children, gays, immigrants, those convicted of crimes whether justly or not, and those even suspected of criminal behavior, except when they are very Conservative, well-to-do white heterosexuals. They like "law and order"-- which inevitably means control over the many who are weak, not over the few who are strong.

Paul himself had reservations about his teaching. In I Corinthians, Ch. 7:24--27, he wrote:
" In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
If your parents were Christians, aren't you glad they didn't follow Paul's teaching on this score? you wouldn't be here, if they had. Doesn't it make you wonder how much else of Paul's teaching didn't come from the Lord?

 

You cannot discern the spirit of Paul because you have not been given eyes to see. I can however testify that the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul and that Paul's teachings are of God. I fully accept that this is a matter of faith but it is through my faith that I please God Invisible, God Immortal, God only Wise, He who is and it is Him whom I serve.

peace

c20

 

And a Mormon could say that you can't discern the spirit of Joseph Smith because you have not been given eyes to see; Pray to God for wisdom. A Mormon could testify that the Holy Spirit spoke through Joseph Smith and that Joseph Smith's teachings are of God, etc.

Replace "Paul" with any other religious figure, if you want.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please don't think I'm denigrating your religious experience. I'm merely saying that others could have and have had similar experiences with other religious figures.